Then clearly, this is not art because it is just a doctored photograph, duplicated:
Then, let's discuss the comic artists who do tracings of images which they then modify to suit their needs. That's not art either under your definition.
And in the writing end, parody can't be great writing because it is just an off-center version of the original writing.
Turning your definition inside out, what is artistic about the Mona Lisa? It's just a portrait: a duplication of a woman sitting in front of a painter because they didn't have photography back then? Since when did a smile amount to artistry? Now, I may agree that some of the on eBay does not deserve to be called art; but it is, just bad art.
I don't think that art has to be a "spiritual thing" at all. It is a personal statement, made in a creative way, which communicates something personal to a viewer, reader or listener. It may not be "good", but it is still art.
Whaam! is good art. It communicates the artist's personal statement of the subject by illuminating characteristics of comic art which have made it so popular. It pulls it all together, and the artist's pallet makes it fun to look at, as well. That's good art, in my book. I also like Rothko, but that's just me.